Democrats Pledge to 'Eliminate' Osama

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction  "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate and as Democrats seek to cut into the public perception that the Republicans are stronger on national security.

Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10-point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress.

With the public skeptical of the Iraq war and Republicans and Democrats alike questioning Bush's war policies, Democrats aim to force Republicans to distance themselves from Bush on Iraq and national security or rubber-stamp what Democrats contend is a failed policy.

"The Democrats are going to take back the security issue," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Republicans have vowed not to let that happen. They characterized the Democrats' platform as tough election-year talk that isn't backed up by the party's record.

"This is more of the same from the party that opposes this president's effort to keep our country safe," said Tracey Schmitt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman. "The bottom line is while this president campaigns against the terrorists, Democrats remain focused on campaigning against this president."

Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."

It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.

The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

For months, House and Senate Democrats have tried to craft a comprehensive position on national security, but they have splintered, primarily over Iraq.

Republicans have sought to use that division to their own political advantage, claiming that Democrats simply attack the president and his fellow Republicans without presenting proposals of their own.

Of course, but Bush talked about it too. And then when he couldn't do it, he started talking about other stuff. The Dems didn't really run with it as much as they should have. Like when the tape was released before the 2004 elections, using that to prove Bush is incompetent in the WOT, especially because we got side tracked by Iraq. At least people are talking about it again, but I still want results. I'm tired of talking points.

Kids in 50yrs will go, OMFG they didnt catch Osama but instead went after Saddam, what morons.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's one thing I like about this.

We've been saying for a while now that the Democrats, in order to take advantage of the Republicans' weakness, need to come up with some sort of (you should pardon the expression) contract with America...one that says, if you elect us, we will do x, y and z. Pledging to go after Osama, instead of make-believe WMD, is a huge step in the right direction.

We've been saying for a while now that the Democrats, in order to take advantage of the Republicans' weakness, need to come up with some sort of (you should pardon the expression) contract with America...one that says, if you elect us, we will do x, y and z. Pledging to go after Osama, instead of make-believe WMD, is a huge step in the right direction.

If you want to read the whole plan you can do so at the DNC website. It is a very good start at laying out an agenda for the 2006 election. As much as I like Newt's "had enough?" slogan, I think this is part of a better approach to go along with holding the GOP accountable for the incompetence and corruption during their hold over all branches of government.

Looks like Sir John Geilgud after being hit in the mouth by Mike Tyson.

Click to expand...

Hadn't thought of that, but excellent catch, Thomas. Even so, what does the picture have to do with the thread? Do you have a clue, because rdowns wasn't kind enough to tell us? Could it be that all democrats who want to focus on the capture of bin Ladin will end up needing dental work? Or are we to infer the man is the picture is laughing because he is so happy someone is finally telling it like it is? Perhaps it is to warn of the effects of premature aging visited on those who have been waiting for this administration to do something that makes sense? Hmmm.... the possibilities are endless.

Hadn't thought of that, but excellent catch, Thomas. Even so, what does the picture have to do with the thread? Do you have a clue, because rdowns wasn't kind enough to tell us? Could it be that all democrats who want to focus on the capture of bin Ladin will end up needing dental work? Or are we to infer the man is the picture is laughing because he is so happy someone is finally telling it like it is? Perhaps it is to warn of the effects of premature aging visited on those who have been waiting for this administration to do something that makes sense? Hmmm.... the possibilities are endless.

Click to expand...

I believe rdowns implication was that our policy is "toothless". At least that's what I inferred.

a) the republican administration might find him first
b) you might get elected and then still not find him

Click to expand...

a) what are the odds of that? They've shown no interest in allocating the right resources to do so yet.

b)I think the dems would have to win the white house before the clock starts ticking on their effort. Will a Democratic administration get the same 8 years to find him this incompetent one will have wasted in its efforts?

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.